Chris Matthews "big question" for this week is who's winning the debate over whether to close Gitmo or not. We get treated to this bit of mumbo jumbo by New York Magazine's John Heilemann in response.

Heilemann: Well on the question though, on the substance of it, the administration's winning the argument because they're right and it's crazy to think that we couldn't integrate it, that we couldn't have these prisoners brought on shore with no risk to the American society.

On the politics conservatives are winning this argument because people are afraid of what the implications would be and I don't think the NIMBY argument, not in my back yard argument, as a political matter is still winning the day right now.

I think Heilemann misspoke since he contradicted himself in the same sentence. It was the end of the show and possibly Matthews wasn't listening to him that carefully since he did't catch the slip, but he said he agrees with him and I would guess it was with what he was trying to say, which is that the Cheney's of the world and the GOP are winning the game of keeping Americans terrified.

That said here's my beef with this. How do you say that the President is correct and that it's "crazy" not to think terrorist suspects could be brought to the U.S. and in the next sentence say the ones who are spreading the crazy with trying to scare the hell out of everyone are winning the argument without qualifying why?

If the NIMBY argument is still winning the day it's because not enough of you "journalists" are calling it out for being "crazy" and explaining to the public how the GOP is fear mongering for political gain. Maybe when Chris Matthews ever bothers to take this seriously as a matter of criminal justice instead of political gain and the silliness of who's "winning and losing" we'll have some better dialog on the topic from one of his shows. I'm not holding my breath for any hope of that happening soon.

In the mean time we are subjected to a give me your opinion in thirty seconds or less round table of nonsense on a topic that deserves a much more serious and lengthy debate.

My dear friend whom I've written about before, who is as liberal as they come and a lovely and intelligent and kind and generous and altogether wonderful person, but is as far-far-right-wing on Israel as one could possibly be, brought this up the other night. She cynically ridiculed our president for naïvely believing that "the sweet Iranians" (her words; snark included) will actually honor the terms of any potential agreement.

I can't talk about this with anyone anymore. I deplore what Boehner and Netanyahu have done and are doing, but I can't come intelligently to the defense of "the sweet Iranians" either. I know enough to know that it's absurd and unreasonable to characterize an entire nation as inherently, categorically, presumptively and unequivocally untrustworthy, but I can't back that up with respect to Iran beyond just knowing that it's wrong.

Make no mistake: People will get killed because of what Boehner and Netanyahu did today.

"Simply demanding that Iran completely capitulate is not a plan, nor would any country support us in that position."

Why not, that's how they're dealing with the Palestinians right now. Seriously, maybe if you stopped marching your settlements further and further into the land the Palestinians are living in right now, they might have less incentive to shell the crap out of you.